Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2130572900-scaled

EU's diplomacy-first foreign policy fades in response to Ukraine war

Unprecedented agreements to sanction Russia and send weapons to the conflict, while sitting out talks, mark a sharp departure from the bloc’s traditional approach.

Analysis | Europe

As Ukrainian and Russian Foreign Ministers met in Turkey for talks last week, the absence of European Union leaders from these diplomatic efforts to end the devastating war is startling. In the meantime, the EU is riding a celebratory wave of success after reaching unanimous consensus on a sanctions regime against Moscow — something it rarely gets in other contexts.

The unprecedented package of financial sanctions adopted by the EU alongside the United States and other Western allies — such as exclusion of seven Russian banks from the SWIFT payment system and a ban on transactions with the Russian Central Bank — was agreed with a speedy approval of the EU’s 27 governments, including Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU has put on the back burner its self-promotion as a global actor prioritizing diplomatic action and a values-based foreign policy as approaches to peace. Instead, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire boasted about unleashing an economic and financial war on Russia aiming for the collapse of the Russian economy.

While the EU together with the United States are entangled in the clash for spheres of influence in the post-Soviet space with Russia, it is the people that bear the costs of the ensuing wars — against the backdrop of unimpeded political interests of elites in power. Inevitably, this is a global step backwards in people-centered politics and a boost for illiberal regional alliances free to disregard international law.

This is not surprising. The restrictive measures imposed on Russia are appealing as they are a relatively easy crisis management approach (especially considering the EU’s weak foreign policy architecture) and an obvious choice given the desire to avoid Western boots on the ground, particularly in a context of emerging nuclear tensions.

But instead of putting any collective political weight into supporting a ceasefire and negotiations to accompany these sanctions — like the French-led effort in 2008 after Russia’s invasion of Georgia — the EU has exchanged diplomacy for militarization. On the day Ukraine and Russia agreed to hold talks in Belarus after the invasion, the EU announced it would send €450 million worth of lethal weapons to Ukraine — the first time the bloc has supplied arms to a country at war. A day earlier, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany will also be sending weapons to Ukraine, marking a historic departure from its long-standing policy banning lethal weapons shipments to conflict zones.

The situation is undoubtedly difficult with no clear way out, and pressure is mounting with the numbers of refugees fleeing Ukraine while the country’s civilians turn into an army to defend their families from the horrors of Putin’s “special operation.” But in choosing a panic-and-do-something approach, the EU is legitimizing selective economic warfare with little appreciation for skilled diplomacy, while blatantly ignoring any useful lessons from the past as to the success of sanctions.

Coupled with double standards in choosing targets for restrictive measures based on political interests, what emerges is another blow to an already struggling multilateral system, where both international law and responses for its violations become an acceptable a la carte menu for those who can afford it.

The winners of such pathways will likely be illiberal alliances drafting their own rules if there is no equal global playing field. Regional cooperation is a favorable choice for governments who can be the next target of restrictive measures by Western allies. It is not surprising that India and China have been looking at alternative financial systems to work around them. The sanctions package that reproduces historically familiar patterns of attempted regime change through economic warfare is only likely to make things worse.

Going forward, to think more seriously about diplomacy, the EU could consider that some of Putin’s aims in Ukraine could have been to a large degree achieved already — creating a protracted conflict and destabilization to close off a path for Ukraine to NATO membership. Because all efforts at stopping the war and its atrocities through sanctions must include a sound assessment of the other party’s aims coupled with a comprehensive analysis of desired and achievable impacts. Simply consolidating the acceptance of selective use of sanctions while dismissing serious diplomacy is going to have grave consequences for peoples’ lives, and, more broadly, for multilateralism.


EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell speaks to the press at the end of an informal video conference of EU foreign affairs ministers at the European Council in Brussels, Belgium on Feb. 28 2022. (Editorial credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.